Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Methods for calculating internal mechanical work: comparison using elite runners.

Sheila B A Purkiss1, D Gordon E Robertson

  • 1Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S 2Z9.

Gait & Posture
|December 12, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Influence of snow shovel shaft configuration on lumbosacral biomechanics during a load-lifting task.

Applied ergonomics·2013
Same author

The application of musculoskeletal modeling to investigate gender bias in non-contact ACL injury rate during single-leg landings.

Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering·2013
Same author

Sagittal plane body kinematics and kinetics during single-leg landing from increasing vertical heights and horizontal distances: implications for risk of non-contact ACL injury.

The Knee·2013
Same author

Kinetic analysis of stair descent: Part 1. Forwards step-over-step descent.

Gait & posture·2011
Same author

Kinetic analysis of forwards and backwards stair descent.

Gait & posture·2007
Same author

Design and responses of Butterworth and critically damped digital filters.

Journal of electromyography and kinesiology : official journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology·2003
Same journal

Reliability and validity of a smart insole incorporating inertial measurement unit and pressure sensors for spatiotemporal gait parameters.

Gait & posture·2026
Same journal

Gait analysis in children with bladder exstrophy shows increased hip adduction, knee valgus and external foot progression in comparison with control participants.

Gait & posture·2026
Same journal

Correlation between plantar pressure and foot morphology in 65 + year-old individuals.

Gait & posture·2026
Same journal

Dual-task interference during a functional mobility task in Parkinson's disease persists across medication states.

Gait & posture·2026
Same journal

Test-retest reliability of spatiotemporal, kinematic, and kinetic measures in marker-based 3D gait analysis: A systematic review.

Gait & posture·2026
Same journal

Effects of auditory perturbations on recovery dynamics as a component of locomotor resilience in healthy young and older adults.

Gait & posture·2026
See all related articles

The absolute power method is superior for calculating the internal biomechanical cost of running. It more accurately detects inefficient running styles and shows less variability than the absolute work method.

Area of Science:

  • Biomechanics
  • Exercise Physiology
  • Sports Science

Background:

  • Calculating internal work is crucial for understanding running economy.
  • Existing methods like the absolute work method have limitations in accuracy and variability.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of the absolute work method and the absolute power method in quantifying the internal biomechanical cost (IBC) of running.
  • To determine which method is superior for identifying inefficient running styles.

Main Methods:

  • Two methods were compared: absolute work (based on mechanical energy changes) and absolute power (based on joint moments).
  • Results were normalized to body mass and running speed to calculate internal biomechanical cost (IBC).
  • Eight runners' normal and inefficient running styles were analyzed.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • The absolute power method detected inefficient running styles significantly more often than the absolute work method (chi2 = 3.22, P < 0.05).
  • The absolute power method demonstrated less variability in quantifying both internal and external work.
  • Normalized IBCs were used to compare running efficiency.

Conclusions:

  • The absolute power method is the preferred technique for quantifying the mechanical energy costs of running.
  • This method offers improved accuracy and reduced variability in assessing running biomechanics.
  • Findings have implications for performance analysis and injury prevention in runners.